Power of attorney executed in Ceylon admissible in India.

1. The first plaintiff in OS No.158 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi is the revision petitioner. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. The application filed by the first plaintiff in IA No.598 of 1992 to continue the suit as Power Agent of the legal representative of the deceased second plaintiff was dismissed on merits. The correctness of that order, dated 12. 1992 is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

.2. I heard Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in the order under challenge are wholly erroneous in law and are not supported by Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, it has to be necessarily set aside. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though the power document was executed in Ceylon, yet it was executed on Indian non-judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs.5. The power document in this case is a special power and therefore, it has got to be engrossed only on Indian non-judicial Stamp paper of the value of Rs.5. When the requirement of the Act had been strictly complied with, neither Section 31 nor Section 32 of the Act will be attracted. Therefore, to rely upon Section 32 of the Act and reject the Interlocutory application would be illegal.

3. On the other hand, Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would argue that when once it is established that the power document is executed outside India, then it has to be necessarily produced before the District Collector having jurisdiction for getting necessary endorsement regarding the proper stamp duty payable on that instrument and the power of the Collector to make an endorsement on such instrument is expressly taken away under the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 32 of the Act, if it is brought to him, after the expiration of three months, after it has been first received in India. According to Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents, whenever an instrument, like the one, is executed outside India, it is mandatory for the person, relying upon such instrument to produce it before the Collector for an endorsement.

4. In the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel on either side, I perused the order under challenge as well as the power document produced in the paper book before this Court. Originally, there were two plaintiffs. The plaint was signed and presented by the first plaintiff for self and as Power of Attorney Agent of the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff was a resident of Sri Lanka, even when the plaint was originally presented. He died pending suit. His son Arunagirinathan had given a fresh power on 22. 1990 in favour of the first plaintiff to continue the suit, representing him in that suit. This document was executed by Arunagirinathan, son of the deceased second plaintiff at Sri Lanka. Three Applications, viz., IA No.857 of 1990 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representatives of the second plaintiff on record; IA No.858 of 1990 to set aside the abatement and IA No.859 of 1990 to bring on record the legal representatives of the second plaintiff were filed by the first plaintiff. At this stage, IA No.598 of 1992 came to be filed for permission to conduct the suit as the Power Agent of the above referred to Arunagirinathan, the legal representative of the deceased second plaintiff.

5. This Power document satisfies the definition Power of Attorney as defined in subsection (21) of Section 2 of the Act. It is not in dispute that this power document is engrossed on Indian non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.5, which is the proper stamp duty, payable on that instrument. On these facts, the question that arises f